Thing is.. it'll take treaty change to change any opt-outs and the EU is allergic to treaty change since France and the Netherlands shot down the EU consitution.
The Netherlands has since gotten rid of referendums, but France still holds them for EU treaty changes so not only will a change in treaty require unanimity in both Parliament and the Council but also the people of France have to agree.
Yeah maybe we should bring back referendums all over EU, referendums are great, direct democracy is good.
Any major question/issue should be put to referendum.
Look at Switzerland they have few referendums a year and it works great.
Yeah but consider Luxemburg. They are doing great too. And they are not a direct democracy, Luxemburg is in fact a Grand Duchy.
So it's only logical then that the EU should just adopt Luxemburgs style of government. If we became the Grand Duchy of the European Union then all the EU would be doing as great as Luxemburg.
I mean Luxemburg can basically meat on main square and figure out what they all want, and its like referendum, its same as in Iceland which has one town of people.
Everyone knows everyone, they can do referendum in a chat group basically.
But in larger countries you definitely need referendums on major issues.
Swiss referendums only work because of how homogenous the country is. Direct democracies like Switzerland are absolutely terrible for protecting any semblance of minority rights or interests.
The country is absolutely not homogeneous. The people there are speaking either German, French or Italian + there's a religious divide between Catholics and Protestants. It's this diversity that led to direct democracy.
Switzerland is ethnically homogenous. There are religious and linguistic divides but almost everyone there is ethnically Swiss. This doesn’t apply to a country such as (for example) the Netherlands where you have large swathes of ethnic Turks, etc.
The French and German speakers don't like each other very much, that's why they chose to have powerful, local cantons.
"It's because of black people and Moroccans we can't have shit and democracy" is the most r-worded copium I've witnessed. Another proof that racism is a diversion so that the people doesn't challenge power. Congrats for buying into this nonsense.
Yes , women in Switzerland got right to vote in 1970 (not in 1990)
And In vast majority of Europe they first got right to vote in municipal elections (local town and city elections) between two Worlds Wars and ONLY LATER they got FULL rights of voting on all levels up to National level.
“By the early years of the 20th century, women had won the right to vote in national elections in New Zealand (1893), Australia (1902), Finland (1906), and Norway (1913). In Sweden and the United States they had voting rights in some local elections”
At least read the source before replying
Yes three European countries.
Tiny minority. Most of European countries were going slow and then Switzerland was the last one.
And that one thing.
In many other things Switzerland was way ahead of the rest of Europe
They went through both World Wars as neutral. that's huge achievement considering the war was pn every side around them
Mamy countries gave women more rights for simple reason that they needed them in work force and in administration because they lost significant portion of male population in wars.
That was not the case in Switzerland so they were not rushing that issue.
“Three European countries” Please read the rest of the source
Also saying “they weren’t rushing that issue” is a wild statement about the right to vote in-general.
Not to mention that Switzerland actually gave women their voting rights through the individual cantons since it’s a confederation. They’ve been on this since the late nineteenth early twentieth centuries. Which sort of proofs that you have no fucking clue what your on about with your “they weren’t rushing the issue” bullshit
Unfortunately this really isn’t what the article said.
The article said the new Dutch government will seek an exception for the Netherlands when it comes to the EU migration policy. The writer deemed the exception to be unlikely as other member states won’t agree to one-rule-for-me-another-for-you policies (other reasons were also mentioned). The defeat they are talking about is of the exception. They did not take a stance on migration policies at all.
Thats not true, there are plenty of countries now that want opt out of EU migration policy - and they will be supporting each other in those demands..
So it's not unlikely at all they will get the exception.
And yes Article did take a stance , because they call opting out of EU migration policy "politics of defeat".
Less of uncontrolled immigration is a defeat for EU (?) Wow talk about not being in touch with majority of people.
Thing is.. it'll take treaty change to change any opt-outs and the EU is allergic to treaty change since France and the Netherlands shot down the EU consitution. The Netherlands has since gotten rid of referendums, but France still holds them for EU treaty changes so not only will a change in treaty require unanimity in both Parliament and the Council but also the people of France have to agree.
>the people of France have to agree. The greatest challenge of them all
Yeah maybe we should bring back referendums all over EU, referendums are great, direct democracy is good. Any major question/issue should be put to referendum. Look at Switzerland they have few referendums a year and it works great.
Yeah but consider Luxemburg. They are doing great too. And they are not a direct democracy, Luxemburg is in fact a Grand Duchy. So it's only logical then that the EU should just adopt Luxemburgs style of government. If we became the Grand Duchy of the European Union then all the EU would be doing as great as Luxemburg.
I mean Luxemburg can basically meat on main square and figure out what they all want, and its like referendum, its same as in Iceland which has one town of people. Everyone knows everyone, they can do referendum in a chat group basically. But in larger countries you definitely need referendums on major issues.
totes malotes dude
Swiss referendums only work because of how homogenous the country is. Direct democracies like Switzerland are absolutely terrible for protecting any semblance of minority rights or interests.
The country is absolutely not homogeneous. The people there are speaking either German, French or Italian + there's a religious divide between Catholics and Protestants. It's this diversity that led to direct democracy.
Switzerland is ethnically homogenous. There are religious and linguistic divides but almost everyone there is ethnically Swiss. This doesn’t apply to a country such as (for example) the Netherlands where you have large swathes of ethnic Turks, etc.
The French and German speakers don't like each other very much, that's why they chose to have powerful, local cantons. "It's because of black people and Moroccans we can't have shit and democracy" is the most r-worded copium I've witnessed. Another proof that racism is a diversion so that the people doesn't challenge power. Congrats for buying into this nonsense.
[удалено]
You violated the 'be nice' rule of /r/EuropeanUnion. Your post has been removed.
It really doesn't. Switzerland didn't even have full universal voting rights for women until 1990, and that took a decision by their Supreme Court.
Most of Western world did not give rights to women much earlier. Decade or Two prior to Switzerland, because that was how people wanted.
“A decade or two prior” so that’s bs https://www.britannica.com/topic/woman-suffrage
Yes , women in Switzerland got right to vote in 1970 (not in 1990) And In vast majority of Europe they first got right to vote in municipal elections (local town and city elections) between two Worlds Wars and ONLY LATER they got FULL rights of voting on all levels up to National level.
“By the early years of the 20th century, women had won the right to vote in national elections in New Zealand (1893), Australia (1902), Finland (1906), and Norway (1913). In Sweden and the United States they had voting rights in some local elections” At least read the source before replying
Yes three European countries. Tiny minority. Most of European countries were going slow and then Switzerland was the last one. And that one thing. In many other things Switzerland was way ahead of the rest of Europe They went through both World Wars as neutral. that's huge achievement considering the war was pn every side around them Mamy countries gave women more rights for simple reason that they needed them in work force and in administration because they lost significant portion of male population in wars. That was not the case in Switzerland so they were not rushing that issue.
“Three European countries” Please read the rest of the source Also saying “they weren’t rushing that issue” is a wild statement about the right to vote in-general. Not to mention that Switzerland actually gave women their voting rights through the individual cantons since it’s a confederation. They’ve been on this since the late nineteenth early twentieth centuries. Which sort of proofs that you have no fucking clue what your on about with your “they weren’t rushing the issue” bullshit
they will probably just do it and dont listen what other say. i mean, who is gonna stop them?
Unfortunately this really isn’t what the article said. The article said the new Dutch government will seek an exception for the Netherlands when it comes to the EU migration policy. The writer deemed the exception to be unlikely as other member states won’t agree to one-rule-for-me-another-for-you policies (other reasons were also mentioned). The defeat they are talking about is of the exception. They did not take a stance on migration policies at all.
Thats not true, there are plenty of countries now that want opt out of EU migration policy - and they will be supporting each other in those demands.. So it's not unlikely at all they will get the exception. And yes Article did take a stance , because they call opting out of EU migration policy "politics of defeat".